Damn you atheists, why won’t you tolerate believers?

I’ve had a look at Chris Stedman’s blog, NonProphet Status. It becomes clearer why he’s so hostile to atheists: he’s not an atheist himself, and he’s the religious kind of humanist as opposed to the non-religious kind. He seems to be tragically homesick for religion, and comforting himself by engaging in a simulacrum. That’s fine; it’s just unfortunate that his chief goal and hobby seems to be throwing atheists under any bus he can find as a way of sucking up to believers.

Atheist activism is at a crossroads, says Andrew Lovley. Whither next? What best to do with our newfound visibility?

Some suggest that we should focus our efforts toward making society less religious by actively trying to persuade people away from religion, while others believe we should work toward toleration and coexistence with our religious neighbors. Until atheist activists achieve some sort of consensus on this issue, we will continue to contradict each other in words and in actions and threaten our relevance as a movement.

As always, that’s a simple-minded dichotomy which leaves out almost everything of importance. It’s not necessarily a matter of trying to persuade people away from religion; it’s often a matter of trying to show people that religious beliefs don’t stand on anything. More important, though, it’s false and highly prejudicial to imply that the more argumentative atheists are opposed to tolerance and coexistence with religious people. We already do tolerate and coexist with religious people! We’re not planning to round them up at gunpoint, or burn down their churches and mosques, or kidnap their children. We’re tired of these sly accusations. We’re tired of “humanists” trying to build up their own reputations by urinating on ours.

Stedman called this hatchet-job “among the best explications I’ve read on this topic.” He would.

Stedman is absolutely an atheist. I think Ophelia means that he is one of those religious humanist types who don’t like the word atheist, despite actually being one. I’ve met Stedman, and spoke with him at length, and he doesn’t seem to have an issue with the word atheist, though I gathered that he considers himself more of a humanist or secular humanist.

Stedman called this hatchet-job “among the best explications I’ve read on this topic.”

That’s a remarkable statement. I’ve read Lovely’s entire post and could not find a single original idea. It’s all shit we’ve heard before, said in pretty much the same Kumbaya language characteristic of the I’m-an-atheist-but crowd.

As to Lovley, he does need a lesson in the meaning of the word “tolerance.” I don’t know any intolerant atheists; they all permit the practice of religion. Being critical of religion is something completely different.

Or his particular brand of Humanism (no doubt orthodox Humanism with a capital H) or orthodox secularism, but the term ‘humanism’ is so bland general that it can encompass anything.

As I’ve suggested before, the religious principle is a moral principle, of separating the good and the bad, the pure and impure. Atheists are to him, unclean and must be purged, or at least they must become good atheists. Much the same is going on within Mooney and accommodationism in general. It is no longer a message about reason, but an ethical message about pure/good communication. It’s not longer about thinking but about bridging. It’s no longer about truth, but about what sells.

In their mindset, those bad atheists are bad, and therefore their communication is bad too and impure. Hence why they want to purge us bad atheists out. And since this is a psychological delusion or trap, they’re incapable of seeing their own hypocrisy at work, how their communication is littered with nastiness and irrationality. Old Razinger would be proud, Stedman.

Why? We’re not a religion. And, frankly, it’s not like the religious have consensus. There are over 30,000 variants of Christianity. Some so drastically different that they’re not really the same religion.

we will continue to contradict each other in words and in actions and threaten our relevance as a movement.

So? It doesn’t matter. A ‘uniform position,’ in my opinion, would be no better. You might some benefits for it. But they may come at an equal cost to the so-called cause.

Beyond that though, in all this “live-and-live” crap these guys try to shove up my ass, why is it they don’t apply the same to me? Why don’t they just shut up and practice what they’re preaching to EVERYONE, including me?

And why does the irony of their ginned-up atheist bashing in the name of ‘respect’ always escape them?

Our movement’s vitality, and our success at achieving our goals, is being undermined by our too-often acerbic and pretentious attitudes. It is time we recognize that the secular movement and its members are best served by acting on an agenda that balances affirmation of our identity and values with conciliation toward the religious.

Thus far, Andrew Lovely…. Well, what on earth is this about? “Conciliation toward the religious” — what does that mean? Conciliate, to regain trust of, to appease, to placate or pacify, to reconcile or make compatible with: which one did he have in mind? I’m done with concliating. Sorry, can’t do it. I’ll live in peace with my religious neighbours. I won’t shout at them as they take off for church on Sunday morning. I won’t placard the neighbourhood with mean, anti-religious slogans. But I won’t conciliate, in any of those meanings of the word.

Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, and others too, have invested a whole lot of energy getting atheism of the map, and here are the accomodationist idiots wanting to give it all up for a mess of religious pottage. Sorry, Stedman or Lovely, or whoever you are: this simply does not compute. You don’t retreat when you’re on a winning streak. If religious people are upset by atheist billboards, well, so what? WTF! So Dawkins is strident. So what? Let’s be strident. Let’s keep the religious guessing. They’ve had things all their own way for so long they thought they were here in the world alone. I say we keep reminding that we’re here. Additionally, I think we need to keep reminding them that there are a whole lot of them who are downright dangerous, and they have to acknowledge this and start to separate themselves from their dangerous brethren.

Besides, has Lovely or Stedman looked at the world religious situation lately?! Gosh, you’d think the only religious people they can think of are their nice Prebyterian neighbours down the street. I don’t suppose they’ve noticed that one religion is trying to kill women instead of caring for them, another large segment of one worldwide religious is going around killing people, and then they celebrate their murders by idolising the murderers — rose petals and all! I really think these guys must be living on a different planet. And if Stedman’s an atheist — well, what can I say? — he needs to remind himself why he is. It’s not very clear that he knows.

And I’m sick of being told my criticism of religion is reductive simply because I criticize those aspects of religion I feel are damaging, while not criticizing those aspects that are either benign or not as damaging. Lovely plays the old sociology card, saying (essentially) that we can’t just criticize theology because religion is so much more than that—people sing songs, don’t you know, and gain a sense of community. Well, yes, that they do. And since I’ve no quarrel with the singing of songs, I don’t criticize it. I criticize the Republicans’ tax policy agenda, but I never criticize the fact that they throw a mean cocktail party. That’s because I have no issue with cocktail parties. But no one would accuse me of having a “reductive” view of Republicans if I criticized their tax policy without ever mentioning how great their parties are. People criticize what they think merits criticism. It’s not reductive. It’s just sticking to the subject at hand.

Well, no. A Tom Johnson would have told a story about how his conciliatory attitude led multiple believers to let go of God. But, then, I would have been surprised, because one of the creepy things about such writing is the total nonchalance regarding belief. One would think that anyone identifying themselves as a humanist – and, therefore, rejecting what most in the culture hold essential to virtue – would have some understanding of belief in supernatural agency as, to put it mildly, not necessarily a good thing. But, no.

Atheist activists will sometimes espouse the idea that a merciless pursuit of objective knowledge and an abandonment of all unfounded truth assumptions will necessarily lead to a better society. This notion itself is quintessential modernist dogma and ignores the practical experience of belief. The personal benefits of belief come not from the beliefs being based in objective truth per se, but instead from the perception that those beliefs are based in truth – they come from certainty not objective veracity. An honest reflection upon this question of an atheistic society should conclude that no, it would not necessarily be a better one to live in.

Can anybody here explain what this explication means? It’s among the weirdest I’ve read on this topic.

On the one hand, the tactic seems to be to convince us that we’re part of a movement, rather than variously motivated individuals, and that we need telling what the party line is so we can bloody well follow it. On the other hand, I sometimes wonder whether we are at all the main intended target audience for these epistles. Maybe they need to impress somebody else (no, not necessarily Templeton) that they’re letting us have it, i.e. it has nothing to do with our behaviour and everything to do with their image as the reasonable ones. In fact, they’d be in pretty big trouble without our bad behaviour – which of course is why they need to invent so much of it.

Can anybody here explain what this explication means? It’s among the weirdest I’ve read on this topic.

I’ll give it a shot! Let’s see:

Atheist activists will sometimes espouse the idea that a merciless pursuit of objective knowledge and an abandonment of all unfounded truth assumptions will necessarily lead to a better society.

Atheists are reductive poopyheads. Reductive explanations steal the magic and make Santa sad. After all, if you know about the orogenic causes of the Himalayas, you can’t experience awe of their majesty and danger. Won’t someone think of the awe?!?

This notion itself is quintessential modernist dogma and ignores the practical experience of belief.

Atheists engage in dogma and faith just as much as religious people. (By comparing us to people of faith we’re no better then them. Which I term the argument from shooting oneself in the foot.)

The personal benefits of belief come not from the beliefs being based in objective truth per se, but instead from the perception that those beliefs are based in truth – they come from certainty not objective veracity.

I wouldn’t call them self-hating (then again I’ve pretty much ignored that camp since I started being honest about my own lack of faith). It seems pretty clear that they view self described and outspoken atheist as belonging to a different collective then they do.

It seems like the accommodationists want us to adopt a particular heuristic perfected by the religious, one that has been as successful for religion as it is perplexing for us. It’s the “just don’t think about it” heuristic. As I started to pay more attention to the religion in which I was raised, I realized that just-don’t-think-about-it was the cornerstone of almost all of our practices. Jesus said “take no thought for the morrow,” but everyone in our church had insurance and savings accounts. Just don’t think about it. The 10 commandments explicitly mention owning slaves, but we see slavery as one of the most shameful practices in our nation’s history. Just don’t think about it. The new testament clearly says women should not talk in church, but… You get the picture. To me this is the difference between affirmative atheists and accommodationists. Affirmative atheists say “religion doesn’t make any sense to me, and I’ll tell you why.” Accommodationists say “religion doesn’t make any sense to me, but let’s all agree to just not think about it.”

A graduate of Augsburg College with a summa cum laude B.A. in Religion, Chris is a blogger for the The Huffington Post Religion, where his work is among the most commented in the site’s history, and is the youngest panelist for The Washington Post On Faith. His writing has also appeared in venues such as Tikkun Daily, The New Humanism, and more. Previously a Content Developer and Adjunct Trainer for the Interfaith Youth Core, Chris is a secular humanist working to foster positive and productive dialogue between faith communities and the nonreligious.

That’s a lot of religion-stuff for an atheist, do admit.

Chris was raised in a secular home but converted to Evangelical Christianity after being invited to church by friends at 11 years old. After years of wrestling with Evangelical theology and his sexual orientation, Chris left the Christian tradition and spent some time exploring. Eventually he recognized that he was a Secular Humanist, and today he works to advocate for the mutual respect of religious and non-religious individuals.

See? He specifically doesn’t say he’s an atheist, and he’s all over religious believers like a bad rash. I say he’s not an atheist.

And this is why I don’t think he’s an atheist (perhaps even if he thinks he is) – it’s because he apparently doesn’t even get why affirmative atheists dislike “faith” and think it’s a bad way to think. It’s because he apparently can’t even see why we don’t all want to give religious belief a huge hug and never let go.

He seems to think there’s no reason whatever to dislike religion and that we’re just being perverse and nasty in doing so. It’s not just that he doesn’t agree, it’s that he can’t even see it.

I think he wants to be religious but has been cast aside due to his inherent human condition — i.e., kicked-to-the-curb for being gay. Had he been born straight, I’m sure he’d be telling those of us who could leave the religious disease of our own free will based on our rational abilities about how wrong we are…

So now, all that is left is sucking up to his oppressors and bashing those who are like him by choice…

To give Stedman some credit, he can occasionally bring himself to say the word “atheist”, even going so far as to defend atheists in the Washington Post. However, it’s a weak sort of defense; he says that atheists can be moral, but nothing to the effect that the religious are often immoral.

As MosesZD noted, the religious don’t have consensus among themselves, so how can atheists be expected to have one with the religious? Furthermore, why is consensus a Good Thing? Improvement depends on disagreement. That’s why democracies are more effective than dictatorships. North Korea has amazing consensus, but it can’t feed itself. If the religious think we’re wrong, let them argue their case. I’m sure many could argue more effectively than Tony Blair did.

While Secular Humanism does encompass atheism, I do find it extremely telling that he doesn’t use the word “atheist” on his About page. A lot of times, people are hoping to be misread when they do that. He’s perhaps hoping people will read that description and say “Well, at least he’s not one of those horrible atheists!”

One thing I find annoying about this type of defense is its reliance on the assumption that all worldviews are equally valid, therefore no one should try to disrupt the harmony by criticizing those with different beliefs. Sorry, Chris, but some people are just plain wrong, and their beliefs have harmful consequences. A worldwide kumbaya won’t change that.

Quite, Hamilton, and James Croft has just written an interesting post saying exactly that, albeit with a lot of angst. I think he can just get over the angst.

He doesn’t like the gulf it creates, that’s what it comes down to. I can understand that, but I also think that bullet just has to be bitten. It can’t be helped. We can’t respect every single belief there is even if we want to, so we might as well try to be honest instead.

Not only am I an unabashed accommodationist (almost Loxtonian, some would say!) but Chris and I share the deep, abiding love that only a gay man and a fat girl can have. So I am biased, but just feel the need to say two things:

1) Chris does not believe in God or a higher power. In my book, that makes him an atheist. Now, he could be lying to me, but gay men do not lie to their fat girlfriends. Ever. It is the holiest of bonds.

2) The “religious stuff” that Chris does can also be called O-U-T-R-E-A-C-H. He has this crazy idea that if he is nice to people who are different from him, a personal relationship might develop that will help both parties understand each other better.

2) The “religious stuff” that Chris does can also be called O-U-T-R-E-A-C-H. He has this crazy idea that if he is nice to people who are different from him, a personal relationship might develop that will help both parties understand each other better.

Yes, but what he seems to mean by “being nice” is “shut your face and stop criticising other people’s precious beliefs.” Sorry, that’s not what “being nice” means to me.

Heidi, that’s all great but I think the real problem is that Chris is bonding with theists by trashing Gnu Atheists and other kinds of atheists and then censoring their protests in the comments section. See the thread titled “An easy target“.

Exactly the right question. The answer, obviously, is “No.” Any atheist who doesn’t bow at the knees before the wonders of “faith” is an asshole. See, we’re part of the problem.

Chris does not believe in God or a higher power. In my book, that makes him an atheist. Now, he could be lying to me

Or he could just be someone who seems reluctant to use the word “atheist” to describe himself publicly—which, combined with his reverence for all things religious, is part of the reason why his bonafides were questioned in the first place. I would think honesty is integral to “outreach” and “understanding.” I for one think it extremely important that activist atheists claim that word, not run from it. “Atheists” who run from it have the right to do so, but in doing so they have also earned their scare quotes.

Many of your reactions do not come off as surprising to me, excepting the sheer volume of derogatory name-calling and purity-testing. [withdrawn; see comment 34. ed.]

As I had mentioned in the article, many of you will question my (and Mr. Stedman’s) atheist identity simply because we are unwilling to vilify religion in toto and we are willing to acknowledge respectable qualities of religion. I absolutely do not believe in any gods, am forever skeptical, and trained in the scientific method. Atheist, skeptic, aspiring scientist. It is baffling as to why any of you are so convinced that Mr. Stedman and/or I are actually religious theists. This level of particularist identity politics is unproductive and leads to social alienation and fragmentation, two outcomes I think are clearly undesirable.

This article was written to address the issue of alienation and fragmentation in regards to the historical and current situation of atheists. Why are we alienated? Why do atheists suffer stigmatization? Why do we see ourselves in passive-aggressive conflict with perhaps 80-90% of the world’s population (religious people)? What should our strategy be to address these issues? I offered description of our social situation and an honest observation of religion in order to form the basis of a normative suggestion for what we as atheist activists should do to improve our place in society.

Atheists, whether overtly or not, tend to resent our prejudiced status in society that often leads to political disregard and social ostracization of atheists and their concerns. These are limitations to atheists enjoying a free and honest expression of conscience in the society we call home. These issues are extra-legal, so a confrontational agenda to compel lawmakers to offer equal legal treatment for atheists is a non-issue really. The source of our social ills is the religious who are afraid of, dubious toward, and/or offended by atheists. That is the target population we want to address if we seek to improve our status and public freedom in society. My main thesis, as it is apparently not clearly understood by most commentors, is that the vitriol toward and gross misunderstanding of most religious people on behalf of many atheists harms our cause for improving our social status and public freedom in society.

It is unfortunate that I (and/or Mr. Stedman) would be accused of suggesting that atheists suck and believers are better than everyone else. If that is a conclusion one has drawn, I am confident it comes not from the actual text or meaning of my writing, but rather the effect of having political particularist baggage. What Mr. Stedman and I are willing to suggest is that both atheists and theists can be great people and deserve equal respect and concern. This is a humanist disposition, one that truly believes in dignity in all people regardless of their creed. Not all religion and/or religious people act on divisive, accusatory, archaic, inciteful, violent and/or guilt and fear driven agendas – so we are dishonest to situate ourselves in antagonism toward all religions and their adherents based on a false generalization. I believe we should oppose religions / religious people who do act on those qualities, so long as it is reasonable and civil. I do not believe it compromises our own beliefs to be opposed to universalizing them. I am comfortable being atheist, and I am comfortable trying to work together with theists. This is honesty and pragmatism, not self-hatred or denial.

There is no reason for atheists not to affirm their identity and publicly question the validity of theisms out there. I submit that it is in our interests though to be willing to respect theists and work together with them when our interests are in sync, which they often are. To think our interests are usually not in sync is to focus myopically on a small handful of mutually exclusive ethical beliefs that get more attention than our vast similarities as human beings. Some fellow atheists will say they do not mind people being religious, yet go out of their way trying to actively persuade them to not be religious, and at times ridicule them for being religious (perhaps more often behind-the-back than directly). Religious people have the right to be apologists for their own theology, and atheists have the right to be apologists for their atheism, but where it becomes an issue is when people engage in ridicule and prosyletyzing. The self-righteousness and disrespect inherent in prosyletyzing is wrong no matter who engages in it, theists or atheists alike.

I think it is irrational to suggest that I am less of an atheist (if one at all) for being critical of the strategies atheist activists engage in with the public, or to acknowledge the benignity and/or charity of many (if not most) religious people. I can think of no other way to explain the utter contempt for my article from fellow atheists than to think that the harshest detractors are needlessly preoccupied with a sacred team mentality that sees any positive gestures toward the other team or criticism of one’s own team to be threatening and, for the lack of a better term, blasphemous. If that is the case, we need to move beyond that.

Thank you all for taking the time to read my ideas. I respect all of you despite our disagreements.

I feel like a broken record, but what else can I say? This is a tiresome replay of the dynamics playing out between activist queers in 80s and 90s, and the LGBT accommodationists of the day. And the latter will lose, just as they always lose when they refuse to give vocal support to a social enfranchisement project that is just. Namby-pamby tea-and-finger-sandwiches queers faded into nitpicking irrelevancy, fretting about how awful it was that drag queens were prancing about in parades and boys in G-strings on floats were upsetting “normal” people. Well, the Mattachine Society went belly-up, and progress continued.

It’s crucial to remember that the-if I may-strident accommodationists, the ones who make fitting in their entire agenda, are not fundamentally interested in the same things that activists are. They claim to be, but they are not. To paint with broad strokes, their personalities are conformist at bottom, and that tendency overrides any apparent common interest in actual justice they may have with their more outspoken conversational opponents. They are more concerned with fitting into, and to some degree buttressing, an existing social order than they are with changing that social order.

I disagree with much of what your friend Chris puts forward, Heidi, but you do speak the truth here:

1) Chris does not believe in God or a higher power. In my book, that makes him an atheist. Now, he could be lying to me, but gay men do not lie to their fat girlfriends. Ever. It is the holiest of bonds.

Thank you all for taking the time to read my ideas. I respect all of you despite our disagreements.

Oh, stop it. This is just the sort of passive-aggressive behavior that provokes condemnation and accusastions of political hackery. The word “respect” isn’t magical. It doesn’t paper over serious intellectual differences. And it’s not a balm for a boo-boo that will make everyone feel better. If we disagree with each other’s analyses, so be it. We should hash it out. There’s no need to try to covertly play martyr (and it’s really obvious what you did) by saying you “respect” all of us. Get down off your sniffy high-horse and pull the imaginary arrows out of your breast.

Andrew: I’m afraid you will probably get dogpiled and my comment may be lost in the milieu, but let me give this a shot, since you’re here:

This article was written to address the issue of alienation and fragmentation in regards to the historical and current situation of atheists. Why are we alienated? Why do atheists suffer stigmatization? … My main thesis, as it is apparently not clearly understood by most commentors, is that the vitriol toward and gross misunderstanding of most religious people on behalf of many atheists harms our cause for improving our social status and public freedom in society.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a thesis and not an argument. Or if it is an argument, it isn’t very good. Your evidence seems to be, “Atheists are angry and atheists are ostracized, therefore atheists are ostracized because they are angry.” The causal link may well go the other way!

In addition, atheists have been ostracized for some time now. I know plenty of atheists who bemoan the fact that only 45-50% of Americans say they would consider voting for an atheist for president — but the silver lining is that this number has actually increased over the last 50 years, even though (IMO) atheists have become louder and more public and outspoken in the past 15 years or so. This is not ironclad evidence against your theory, but it does mean you need to explain why public acceptance of atheists has been steadily increasing while we’ve been getting louder and angrier.

Finally, building coalitions is not what every atheist will do or should do. I used to be an intern for an atheist lobbying group in DC, and they were perfectly willing to build coalitions with Episcopalians, Muslims, religious Jews, interfaith groups, reproductive freedom advocates, teachers’ unions, and whoever else was on their side about some issue. It seemed the best way to get things done in Washington. But that doesn’t mean that atheist bloggers need to do the same thing, because they have different functions, different aims, and different audiences. Some people are writing just to blow off steam or to make people laugh; some are writing to encourage fellow atheists to come out of the closet; others care about a particular issue (like abortion or euthanasia) and they want to point out and criticize religious intrusion as it concerns that issue (see Eric’s excellent Choice in Dying blog, for example).

You said, “The source of our social ills is the religious who are afraid of, dubious toward, and/or offended by atheists. That is the target population we want to address if we seek to improve our status and public freedom in society.” But just because the source of our social ills is anti-atheist religious people — and I’m not entirely sure I even accept that statement without qualifiers — it doesn’t mean that all atheist writing has to be aimed at those people. It might be aimed at their closeted-atheist friends, children, neighbors, and co-workers, who might change their bigoted families’ minds a little if they came out as atheists. Or it might just be aimed at other atheists, as a way to blow off steam together and give each other a safe place (e.g. the comments section of Pharyngula) to mock thoroughly ridiculous beliefs.

Perhaps the bulk of our disagreement arises precisely from our differing ideas on respect in regards to ‘serious intellectual differences’. I do not see those differences as a boo-boo in the first place; I welcome your reasoned disagreement and the prospects for a fruitful dialectic.

If that’s the case, then I apologize. It’s just that that sort of thing is all too standard in the arsenal of people who make a great effort to paint themselves as “nice,” “reasonable,” and “decent,” in an effort to cast others as shrill and intolerant. It comes across as affected and dishonest. There’s a bit of a history to this in the past six years or so, which you may not be aware of. There are real, legitimate reasons that those of us who are more outspoken and less compromising have our backs up – we’re used to being sold down the river by people who claim to have the same goals we do. It’s good to be aware of.

The source of our social ills is the religious who are afraid of, dubious toward, and/or offended by atheists. That is the target population we want to address if we seek to improve our status and public freedom in society. My main thesis, as it is apparently not clearly understood by most commentors, is that the vitriol toward and gross misunderstanding of most religious people on behalf of many atheists harms our cause for improving our social status and public freedom in society.

You seem more concerned with the “vitriol” and “misunderstanding” toward religious people that you claim is so common among atheists than you are with the (and really, you must admit this is true) actual vitriol and misunderstanding that the religious majority has toward the tiny and mostly socially powerless atheist minority. Why is that?

Many religious people (no, not all, but not tiny, insignificant numbers, either) actually believe atheists shouldn’t be elected to public office, shouldn’t have the same rights of free speech on public property, and are “offensive” by virtue of merely affirming that they don’t believe in God. You find this comparable to the alleged “misunderstanding” of religious people by atheists?

And just how do you propose we atheists address the problem of the religious being offended by or dubious of us (because you imply that we, not their retrograde attitudes) are the problem? Should we “tone it down?” Should we be less obnoxious/candid/truthful/outrageously unashamed?

This calls to mind what my Vice Principal told me in High School when I complained to her about having the shit beat of of me for being gay: “Well, that’s what you get for being different and putting it in their face.”

The ostracization-anger link is a valid one I believe, in both directions. My suggestion is that perhaps anger-driven atheist activism does nothing to lower the level of ostracization, and that an effort to encourage pluralism would contribute to lower ostracization. It is possible that as scientific, medical, and technological advances were made over the last century or two, more people have become atheist and thus a higher percentage of people who would trust an atheist to be president. I could very well be wrong, but it is possible that the rise in positive attitudes toward atheists is only an effect of there being more atheists.

As for your point about the roles of lobbyists vs bloggers, I am glad you made that distinction. However I believe I was specific throughout the article in referring to atheist activists, or atheists that engage the wider public (especially by directing their efforts toward the religious). While I will likely not appreciate the vitriolic sentiments of many bloggers and disagree with their characterization of religion, I am mostly concerned with those engaged in outreach.

Andrew, I need to ask you a couple of things in order to understand who I’m talking to. First, how old are you, please? Second, do you have any direct experience of any social justice cause (aside from atheism/humanism)? Do you fall on the LGBT spectrum anywhere?

My suggestion is that perhaps anger-driven atheist activism does nothing to lower the level of ostracization, and that an effort to encourage pluralism would contribute to lower ostracization.

Your suggestion comes from an ignorance of history. “Anger-driven” queer activism did a boatload more to improve the legal and social lots of LGBT people than you would likely credit. Anger is not a bad word. Being brash is not always inappropriate. You cannot shift public opinion merely by diplomacy and roundtable negotiations (though those are important, too). You also have to shout sometimes and say, “Don’t care if you don’t like it. I’m not going away, and you’re not going to continue treating us like this. Full stop.”

Some people have to be shamed into letting go, or at least hiding, unwarranted prejudices.

I think our vitriol and misunderstanding toward the religious definitely contributes to our undesirable social status. That is precisely why I think it is important to clear up misunderstandings and to promote a better attitude. Sure, there are some religious people who do not trust atheists by virtue of them being atheists. However, I truly believe that most religious people do not trust us because they misunderstand us. They either do not knowingly associate with atheists and know much about them period, or their most frequent exposure to atheists is in the form of vitriol. If we participate in exemplifying the moral atheist (the secular humanist) and take the high ground by insisting on pluralistic tolerance and respect, I think those who merely do not trust because of misunderstanding would be more willing to consider us dignified and worthy of trust and respect.

Andrew, in your #46 – You’re probably right about the prevalence of misunderstanding. But I think you vastly underestimate the ignorant prejudice against atheists simply because they are atheists. Yes, people getting to know us as “normal” people they meet at the grocery store will go a long way to help, just as it has with other minority groups. But that’s not the only challenge to be met. We also must break the stigma against saying “I’m an atheist,” and we have to make it socially unacceptable for otherwise well-meaning people to blithely mouth off their prejudices against the godless. People talk about atheists in mixed company in ways that would get them shocked stares if they were talking about black people at a cocktail party. You can’t fight that only with “understanding.” Some of us have to be willing to be the one at the party who says, “I beg your pardon, madam, but who do you think you are?”

As mentioned before, the analogy of the current atheist situation and that of gays and lesbians is a close-fitting but ultimately poor analogy. Gays and lesbians are working toward changes in the legal system, which is more susceptible to confrontational activism than are changes in general public opinion. We need to live in a society that is more accepting of atheists, and that is what I am trying to help make a reality.

Andrew, you need to define this “vitriol” and “misunderstanding” that you claim atheist frequently display to the religious. Real examples, please. And you need to support your argument that most religious people most frequently see atheists performing vitriol. Really? In what ways? Where?

As mentioned before, the analogy of the current atheist situation and that of gays and lesbians is a close-fitting but ultimately poor analogy. Gays and lesbians are working toward changes in the legal system, which is more susceptible to confrontational activism than are changes in general public opinion.

You are shockingly wrong. As a gay rights activist for 22 years, I can tell you I’ve been working just as hard on societal attitudes and acceptance as I have on legal progress. It is most certainly not a poor analogy. From what vast wealth of experience do you speak?

Josh, I have little to argue with in your comment #47, besides that I am not underestimating the proportion of those who are dubious toward atheists simply for being atheists. It seems to me to best counter such beliefs and proclamations by asserting our morality and dignity, acknowledging our similarities, and if necessary, shaming for being so divisive and demonizing.

How do you think atheists are most often portrayed in the news, or on billboards? What are the most popularly known atheist books? It seems obvious to me that our public face is an angry one.

#50 That is admirable that you have been dedicated for so long toward issues of gay rights. I am not speaking from a wealth of experience, as you very well are. Yet we are not talking about atheist rights, that is my point. We’re talking mainly about public perception of atheism and the goals of atheist activism. In the comments section on Mr. Stedman’s blog related to my article, a commentor with the username Timberwraith also pointed out that the analogy between atheist activism and gay rights activism particularly does not work when considering some atheists’ efforts toward universalizing their worldview. That would be like gay rights activists trying to persuade heterosexuals to be homosexuals.

Maybe you could propose ideas as to how confrontation works toward improving our social status? I am not sure if I can keep defending my position without repeating myself.

I do not have anything but anecdotal evidence and conclusions from personal observations. I make a serious effort to understand the beliefs of others (I am a student of psychology afterall) and it appears to me, in the most modest way, that the bulk of mistrust toward atheists is based more on misunderstandings than on theological dogma.

Where’s the big divide? I think we should sometimes resort to shaming theists for being divisive and demonizing. The problem is that atheists are seemingly no less likely of being divisive and demonizing theists

How do you think atheists are most often portrayed in the news, or on billboards? What are the most popularly known atheist books? It seems obvious to me that our public face is an angry one.

You say this as if it were uncontroversial, and not in need of support? The media portrays us as hostile, yes, but that’s our fault? Really? It couldn’t be unreasonable prejudice on the part of the media? And we’re going to fix that by doing exactly what, Andrew? Big question – WHY are you not holding the media to account for how they portray us, but rather directing it back toward us? That’s extremely troublesome.

And the most popularly known atheist books? Apparently, I’m supposed to just understand and accept that Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens are “bad” because their books are “angry” without you unpacking what you mean? Bullshit. Spell out your argument. What’s wrong with these books? Even if they are “angry” (and some portions of each is, but they’re a whole lot more than merely “angry”) what’s so dire to you about well-placed anger? Seriously?

You have a clear problem with outspokenness and anger, and it runs so deep you don’t even see it. You need to understand that anger is sometimes appropriate and constructive. Life is not always a tea party, Andrew. These bestselling books have done more to make unashamed atheism a topic for legitimate conversation in the US than anyone has done for decades. Why is this a problem for you?

The problem is that atheists are seemingly no less likely of being divisive and demonizing theists

Qualifying words can’t make your argument more sound. You need to do better. You know what it looks like to me? Your personal, emotional uncomfortability with confrontation is spilling over into your intellectual analyses, and it’s causing you to make unsupported arguments.

By the way, “divisive” is not necessarily a bad thing. We’re not always going to agree on everything. You could accuse a nuclear power opponent of being “divisive” by holding up a protest sign, but that would be stupid. Wouldn’t it? Why are you afraid of heated disagreement, or even disagreement that isn’t that heated? It looks to me like any conversation that gets more impassioned than “Oh, I can see how you’d think that, and do pardon me for not fully understanding, but is it perhaps possible that. . .” sets you running. Maybe the problem is you.

The ostracization-anger link is a valid one I believe, in both directions. My suggestion is that perhaps anger-driven atheist activism does nothing to lower the level of ostracization, and that an effort to encourage pluralism would contribute to lower ostracization. It is possible that as scientific, medical, and technological advances were made over the last century or two, more people have become atheist and thus a higher percentage of people who would trust an atheist to be president. I could very well be wrong, but it is possible that the rise in positive attitudes toward atheists is only an effect of there being more atheists.

OK — but that suggests that the best way (or at least one good way) to increase public acceptance of atheists is to get more people to be atheists. So now you’re not aiming at the anti-atheist religious crew like you suggested earlier, you’re aiming at the fence-sitters, the high school and college students taking science or philosophy classes and struggling with their parents’ religion, and so on. I think that’s an audience for whom the confrontational atheists will be most effective. Your argument also suggests that making persuasive public arguments in favor of atheism may be a good idea — it may tick off committed religious folk who don’t like us, but if it creates more atheists, it’ll help, because if what you say is true, increased numbers of atheists are the real driving force behind public acceptance of atheism. Right?

(P.S. Andrew, sorry for delayed reply — I’m much more easily distracted and slower to think than Josh, apparently. Also it’s 3 AM here and I should probably sleep.

I too am interested in the lessons that atheists can learn from the success of LGBT activism; it suggests to me that anger can help rather than hinder a movement. I am young and straight, however, so I don’t have Josh’s perspective on the issue.)

When trying to manage a sustainable and fulfilling plural society, efforts characterized by antagonism just do not seem constructive or productive. If you would take time to get to know me in person, and our relationship was not so tenuous as to be foiled by heated disagreements as it can be between strangers, you may understand this has nothing to do with some phobia of conflict and disagreements. If I was so fearful of your disagreements then I do not think I’d continue to address your critiques without retracting my comments. I stand by what I said, we simply disagree and I suppose I am unable to convince you! There are not scientific studies yet available to back-up the nuances of atheist-theist relations that I have made assertions about. Perhaps it was irresponsible to speak so confidently without objective data to point to, however I believe my normative suggestions are logically derived from the given social situation of atheists, it’ll have to either be taken into consideration and tried out in practice, or we can continue to let our confrontational actions be the dominant representations of atheism.

When trying to manage a sustainable and fulfilling plural society, efforts characterized by antagonism just do not seem constructive or productive.

Let’s talk about this tomorrow? But please, do me a favor – come with a real argument. I don’t give a flying fig what “seems” productive to you. You’re apparently incapable of listening or understanding when people with experience tell you that, yes, things you don’t like and don’t emotionally cotton to can, actually, be effective. If you’re just going to flap your gums (and you are verbose, lord, are you verbose) saying the same thing that amounts to “I just personally can’t understand this, so you must be wrong,” then spare me. Or at least do it more concisely.

Big question – WHY are you not holding the media to account for how they portray us, but rather directing it back toward us? That’s extremely troublesome.

THIS!

Has anyone on the accommodationist side ever answered this question?

Off topic: I am a daily visitor to B&W but I very rarely comment. I am so grateful to all the regulars here, particularly Josh, who write such thoughtful, informative and incisive comments. I am sure I am not the only lurker who appreciates these discussions, and the effort/time you put into them, very much. Thanks commentors. Thanks Ophelia.

Let me add my two kronors to the conversation. First I might suggest that accusing Chris Stedman or Andrew Lovley of not being atheists is wrong. One thing I have learned from the online culture war of the past few years is that the non-religious community and more specifically the atheist community, is very disparate. There are plenty on the accomodationist side that rarely describe themselves atheists but will admit it when pushed. That Chris fits into this category is simply a fact of where he fits within the overall spectrum – it doesn’t make him any less the atheist. It does, however, mean he is not a gnu atheist, and as such there should be no assumption that he should have the same objectives that the gnu’s tend to share.

For me the difference between the gnu’s and the accomodationist atheists is that the gnu atheist position is essentially one of a philosophical nature; they tend to be a subsection of the overall skeptical movement that hold philosophical naturalism as the worldview model that best fits the evidence. Unlike political atheistic movements the gnu position does not seek to ban religion, merely to reduce its influence in public life. The accomodationist position, ironically, is much more akin to the political atheism of the past. It considers some behavior as beyond the pale of civil discourse for political rather than factual reasons. For instance it is OK to mock creationists for believing in a 6000 year old Earth (since there is no evidence to support this claim and it defies all known physical laws) but it is not OK to mock SOME religious claims that have a similar lack of evidence (for instance, the resurrection of Jesus). The reason why one of these religious beliefs is free to mock and the other is not is simply due to political pragmatism – the creationists haven’t the political power that Christianity overall has at its command. That said, the difference between the positions of gnus and accomodationists that causes the most conflict is the way accomodationists try to position themselves as a ‘moderate’ option by publicly criticizing the gnus as extremists who should shut up. It is almost a defining point in the accomodationist message. In contrast I haven’t heard a single prominent gnu who has called for the accomodationists to be silenced – most gnus seem to take the position that a multipronged approach towards religion is the best way forward.

It’s crucial to remember that the-if I may-strident accommodationists, the ones who make fitting in their entire agenda, are not fundamentally interested in the same things that activists are. They claim to be, but they are not. To paint with broad strokes, their personalities are conformist at bottom, and that tendency overrides any apparent common interest in actual justice they may have with their more outspoken conversational opponents. They are more concerned with fitting into, and to some degree buttressing, an existing social order than they are with changing that social order.

This, precisely. I’ll thank you, Andrew, to stop speaking in terms of “we” and “our [cause, movement, etc.].” It’s quite evident that not only do you not share my cause, you don’t understand it. You speak as if the priority is “fitting in” – atheists becoming one among many mutually tolerated “faith” communities. You claim that we need to approach the religious from an ethical standpoint, but what you don’t seem to grasp is that this is precisely what gnu atheists are doing. You fail to appreciate that ours is a reality-based ethics, founded on a deep commitment to reality. (I won’t link to Allen Wood’s “The Duty to Believe According to the Evidence” again, but you really should read it if you haven’t.) As I see it, the commitment to reality and valid epistemology is the only basis for decent actions and public policy. Religions are one of the biggest hindrances to reality-based ethical practice, and it’s in this sense that so-called moderate religion aids the worst fundamentalisms, religious and political. Theism is not OK with me – it’s fundamentally unethical (and selfish) to hold to a non-reality-based cosmology and to hold “faith” as a principle. People’s lives now and the future of the planet require that our actions and policies be based in reality. We are in urgent need of reality-based ethics. Until you understand this, you will be mischaracterizing and talking past people.

There are not scientific studies yet available to back-up the nuances of atheist-theist relations that I have made assertions about. Perhaps it was irresponsible to speak so confidently without objective data to point to, however I believe my normative suggestions are logically derived from the given social situation of atheists, it’ll have to either be taken into consideration and tried out in practice, or we can continue to let our confrontational actions be the dominant representations of atheism.

No perhaps about it: it’s completely irresponsible. It’s also irresponsible to contribute to the slew of negative protrayals of atheists at a moment when atheists are a marginalized group. It’s silly to suggest that there’s no scientific evidence “yet” – you have nothing to back up your contentions, or even any concrete examples of what you’re talking about. And your mention of taking your baseless assertions into consideration (why would anyone do this?) is quite presumptuous. If you think for some reason that your methods are best to achieve your goals, then continue to put them into practice and share them. (Someone asked you in the comments of your piece why you don’t simply practice what you’re preaching and talk about the positive actions you see rather than attacking others, and these are wise words.) If what you’re saying (beneath the “we” language) is that my actions are hurting your cause, well, tough darts. I DON’T CARE. I really, seriously do not care. I don’t share your priorities, and I don’t care how your efforts might be affected by mine. Your post doesn’t say anything we’ve not heard for several years, and our response has consistently been that these articles are groundless, arrogant, tiresome, and obnoxious. It’s an unproductive effort. We aren’t going to try out your ideas in practice, so you’re going to have to deal with it. Meanwhile, you could make an effort to understand where atheists with more experience and knowledge than you are coming from and appreciate that you could be wrong. That’s the essence of respect; everything else is just words.

In the comments section on Mr. Stedman’s blog related to my article, a commentor with the username Timberwraith also pointed out that the analogy between atheist activism and gay rights activism particularly does not work when considering some atheists’ efforts toward universalizing their worldview. That would be like gay rights activists trying to persuade heterosexuals to be homosexuals.

Um, no. It’s like gay rights activists trying to get people to understand that “drag queens…prancing about in parades and boys in G-strings on floats…upsetting ‘normal’ people” should not have to deny their self-expression to be less different and disturbing so “quiet,” “normal,” less threatening gay people can be tolerated by heterosexuals. It’s about reformulating and expanding views of sexual self-expression and the awareness that real differences can exist and that they should be recognized and celebrated rather than hidden. (There’s no perfect corollary wrt atheism or skepticism, but there doesn’t need to be for the analogy to make its point.)

What are the most popularly known atheist books?

Frankly, I’m somewhat stunned by your lack of appreciation for the people whose work, at some personal cost, has been instrumental in advancing atheism and science, and have to wonder how closely you read, say, The God Delusion.

(There’s no perfect corollary wrt atheism or skepticism, but there doesn’t need to be for the analogy to make its point.)

By which I mean that, while the analogy works in terms of changing worldviews broadly (about sexuality or about religion), there’s a fundamental difference between sexual orientation/expression and beliefs/epistemology. So please don’t come back with some weak-sauce bit about religious pluralism being parallel to sexual pluralism. They’re not comparable.

Timberwraith also pointed out that the analogy between atheist activism and gay rights activism particularly does not work when considering some atheists’ efforts toward universalizing their worldview. That would be like gay rights activists trying to persuade heterosexuals to be homosexuals. –Andrew Lovley #53

Not at all. *sigh*

In matters of sexual orientation, there are closeted LGBTs who could use some persuasion and positive role models and the benefits of full equality with straight people. One would be wrong (and indeed homophobic) to think there was any attempt to convert straights going on in the gay rights movement, and Timberwraith appears to know this. However, one would also be remiss to overlook how much gay rights, women’s rights, and Black civil rights movements all affected culture, and in that respect, many straight people have been persuaded to change.

One could argue about whether there is some kind of innate inclination towards spirituality in humans, but religion itself is solely a question of culture and one that is amenable to skeptical inquiry. So the analogy with gay rights activism holds because religion is a cultural issue subject to change throughout life, not an innate biological issue.

How do you think atheists are most often portrayed in the news, or on billboards? What are the most popularly known atheist books? It seems obvious to me that our public face is an angry one. –Andrew Lovley #53

Name the “most popularly known atheist books”. I imagine you will cite “The God Delusion” and “God is Not Great”. People who have actually read those books know there is not a flicker of anger to be found in them. Instead, those two books are widely praised as presenting reasonable, rational, and clear arguments against theism and for atheism. The “anger” pulled from those books has all been manufactured by theists and accommodationists; it just doesn’t exist.

This whole focus on “angry Gnus” by accommodationists is really quite exasperating. Why can’t accommodationists concern themselves with their own business instead of trying to gain praise from theists by throwing mud at the Gnus?

“A world in which people always abided by the evidentialist principle, like a world in which human rights were always respected, in which there were no wide gaps between rich and poor, and in which all nations and peoples were at peace with one another, would be a very different world from the one we live in, and like those other possible worlds, I think it would also be a much better world than the one we live in.” – Allen Wood

Confrontational atheists are virtually ineffective at persuading theists that they are wrong, and the atheist’s efforts seem to further entrench theists in their beliefs and attitudes – not to mention increasing their distrust and/or contempt for atheists.

[citation needed]

wavering theists will be far more likely to join our ranks if they sense they can be associated with a positive and constructive crowd, not having to choose between the camaraderie of religion and the tenuous animosity of atheism.

How bizarre. Animosity towards religion doesn’t preclude camaraderie amongst atheists. This demonstrates another major problem with your perspective. You interpret and judge atheism from a perspective that comes from outside atheist communities and views them only in terms of external relations and how well they ape religious models. The atheist communities with which I’ve had experience I’ve found to be positive and constructive, vibrant and mutually-supporting. (I’ve also seen wavering theists change their thinking and join them.) If you define positive and constructive solely in terms of accomodation to religion, then of course these movements will not appear to be positive or constructive, but this is the result of a warped perspective lacking verstehen. Think about it: What aspects of gnu atheism do you think might be attractive to nonbelievers, waverers, political activists, etc.? Can you think of any ways in which what you, approaching things from a religious POV, might find offputting could be regarded as appealing or liberatory to others?

But, as was pointed out a few threads back, atheism isn’t a religion, and we don’t need or expect it to provide any of the presumed benefits of religion or to independently result in some utopia. Sheesh, you’d think you and Stedman had no lives or recognition of people’s lives outside of this context. Do you have any other interests or activities or friendships that don’t involve these movements?

I think our vitriol and misunderstanding toward the religious definitely contributes to our undesirable social status.

Andrew, you seem to be suggesting that “our undesirable social status” arose with the publication of The God Delusion, and that it is the rise of Gnu Atheism that has made the religious uncomfortable. What the Gnu Atheists repeatedly point out is that, on the contrary, atheists have been reviled throughout history, a history that has primarily involved atheists practicing precisely the accommodationism you advocate. It is only with the rise of Gnu Atheism that we see questioning of religious belief become part of the public discourse — before the GAs, there was no actual discussion of whether reviling atheism was inappropriate.

So, from a purely practical standpoint, ignoring the social etiquette qualms you express, there is plenty of evidence that the GAs are actually helping to normalize atheism, to make it more acceptable. Certainly there is more evidence for such a position than there is that accommodationism has been effective. And the more strident GAs that you object to so much may be simply pushing the Overton Window (a notion you don’t mention, but which is implicit in Josh’s comments on gay rights and acceptance).

Well, ok, I guess, maybe…but an atheist who is reluctant to identify as such and does so only when pushed…well technically you’re right that that’s still an atheist, but I can’t agree with “it doesn’t make him any less the atheist.”

But I suppose that means I’m loading extra meanings onto the word, which is something I resist when atheism-haters do it, so perhaps I should just concede the point.

I think Sigmund is basically right about throwing accusations about whether or not someone is an atheist. Atheists can be woo and irrational and religious enablers. We might not like it, but they exist.

“The great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the outright bigot, but the moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises us to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.”

Is it more important for atheists to make friends with everyone, than to try address some very real problems? Because if we are doing the latter, I don’t really see how the former would be possible.

I’ve been trying to raise awareness towards the problematic birth control ban practised by a revivalist sect in Finland, saying that it’s probably not simply out of the women’s own free will that they have often more than 10 children. I’ve been accused of being totalitarian, intolerant and hate-filled, having a hidden agenda and wanting to eradicate all religions. And I honestly haven’t ridiculed anyone or used derogatory language.

I don’t think the reaction I got, the rection we get quite often when we point out actual problems, is really about the religious misunderstanding atheists. It’s the way the religious can dismiss well-founded criticisms when they come from us. If the goal if to make friends, then I’m afraid we’d have to shut up about all unfairness, irrationality, cruelty, stupidity, immorality and hypocrisy that religious institutions and people are guilty of.

Letter from Birmingham Jail, yes, Locutus? Much cited in this context, by me and many others. V good; happy MLK day.

Egbert, I’m not “throwing accusations around,” I’m questioning the atheism of one particular person, for reasons given. I do think there’s something suspect about the atheism of someone who lavishes love and admiration on theists while pouring scorn and anger on atheists. It’s like being a “liberal” who lavishes love and admiration on reactionaries while pouring scorn and anger on liberals. Stedman seems to think that theism is profoundly admirable and that atheism is mostly horrid. Yes that’s logically consistent with being an atheist anyway, but it looks to me as if he doesn’t really want to be considered one.

They are members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, and I think the chuch should be pressured to condemn the birth control ban that is more like an obligation to use every opportunity to have a baby. Unsurprisingly it’s atheists that are most interested in doing something, but apparently we’re just being intolerant.

And I second the thanks to Josh – and to baby Jesus for causing the skilled medical professionals to prevent Josh from abruptly leaving us!

Oh that Josh! I wasn’t actually sure if you were the same as the Josh on Pharyngula. Yes, I am extremely glad that both Josh and that the medical professionals acted quickly and kept him alive!

(BTW, the last movie my husband and I watched together was Dolores Claiborne. Don’t know if that’s where the name came from or if it is real or based on the historical person, but it did pop up at me while I was watching and made me think of your excellent points here on Butterflies and Wheels.)

I’ve just watched the BBC Panorama programme where John Sweeney tears strips off the Church of Scientology (a follow up to his first programme). He can’t be accused of being “tolerant” and “wanting coexistence” with these “religious neighbors.”

I’d be curious to know how Stedman, Lovley, Mooney, etc. would accommodate this particularly insidious brand of woo into their Let’s-All-Be-Friends-Fest.

Can we perhaps label them half-atheists & half-theists? I think this would be mutually helpful for all of us (for sake of clarity of course), since ‘half-theist’ is so much more friendly and cosy for them to fit in with their religious friends, while we can berate them with the label ‘half-atheist’. Sounds all sensible to me.

Well actually Egbert I suppose we’re back with “faitheists.” I’ve been avoiding that word, because it riles people really a lot, but dang sometimes it’s the word that fits. Stedman fits the description like a glove.

Stedman is annoyed that I’ve been posting about his (public, published) writing. He’s been tweeting about it – which seems ridiculous to me, since there’s no room to discuss anything. Why Twitter of all places?!

But being annoyed seems ridiculous to me, too. I could see it if I’d been getting him all wrong and misrepresenting what he writes…but I haven’t. Given that, what’s the problem? His stuff is public, just as mine is. I discuss it; so? That’s normal. I disagree with it; also normal.

He told me to talk to him directly rather than speculating, and gave an email address. But that’s ridiculous too. Writing a reply to someone else’s public claims is not like high school gossip and backbiting. I’m not doing anything underhand or evasive by writing public commentary on his public commentary. I don’t have some ethical duty to write to him personally instead. I’m not really terribly interested in engaging with him personally, to tell the truth; I’m interested in countering and criticizing his public claims. I don’t know him; I don’t expect to know him; all I know of him is what he writes in public, and that’s what I want to deal with – in public.

He’s been tweeting about it – which seems ridiculous to me, since there’s no room to discuss anything. Why Twitter of all places?!

Your answer is right there in the previous sentence, I think.

He told me to talk to him directly rather than speculating, and gave an email address. But that’s ridiculous too. Writing a reply to someone else’s public claims is not like high school gossip and backbiting. I’m not doing anything underhand or evasive by writing public commentary on his public commentary. I don’t have some ethical duty to write to him personally instead. I’m not really terribly interested in engaging with him personally, to tell the truth; I’m interested in countering and criticizing his public claims. I don’t know him; I don’t expect to know him; all I know of him is what he writes in public, and that’s what I want to deal with – in public.

Full of conjecture re: my atheism, being “homesick” for religion, what my sexual orientation has to do with it.

I’m not sure which thread comments he’s referring to, but his “About” page at NPS says: “After years of wrestling with Evangelical theology and his sexual orientation, Chris left the Christian tradition and spent some time exploring.” This suggests some sort of connection, and it’s not surprising that people would be curious about it. But of course it has nothing to do with the substance of your (and others’) challenges and criticisms. It’s a dodge.

There is no reason for atheists not to affirm their identity and publicly question the validity of theisms out there. I submit that it is in our interests though to be willing to respect theists and work together with them when our interests are in sync, which they often are. To think our interests are usually not in sync is to focus myopically on a small handful of mutually exclusive ethical beliefs that get more attention than our vast similarities as human beings.

The “vast similarities as human beings” is taken as a given by the atheist side, since values, virtues, ethics, and aesthetics are considered part of the secular common ground we all share simply by being human, and being of good will. Religion doesn’t matter. The world is our common ground.

But it’s not taken as a given by the religious. Instead, they believe these categories depend on the existence of God, are explained by the existence of God, and can only truly be understood and appreciated through accepting the existence of God (or, if you’d rather, the “Transcendent.” ) Religion really, really matters. It is what ought to define our lives, who we are, what we can become. From this vantage point, atheists deny the common ground. They lose the foundation of values, virtue, ethics, and aesthetics.

I think the lopsided nature of this pretty much entails that the strategy of assuring the religious we will accept them as they are and will not try to take their faith away as long as they accept us as we areis a poor long term strategy. It grants that religion belongs to one’s personal identity, and is not an unnecessary collection of flawed facts and bad reasons to do the right –or wrong — thing.

Mostly, it seems to me that the religious don’t like us because they believe

1.) God’s existence is revealed/apparent to all those who are honest and appreciative enough to be open to the idea that there are higher powers than ourselves and the material world.

2.) It is only through the humble approach of faith that one can understand love, and be moved to walk the loving path of God.

3.) The most important thing — the most reasonable thing — we can do in life is accept #1 and #2: it will transform us and bring us together.

4.) Not that there’s anything wrong with being an atheist, though — as long as they act as if they aren’t atheists.

Okay, that last one is problematic. Those first 3 are what kill us. If having faith in God or Being Spiritual is considered that significant, then nonbelievers are virtually incomprehensible. Of course there is “something wrong with being an atheist,” given those premises. Atheists must be living in bizzaro world. What can atheists possibly be thinking? How can they choose against God? Why would anyone in their right mind reject faith? When the case for faith is so overwhelming, so compelling, so fulfilling?? What reason can they have to throw out common sense and not believe?

Don’t tell us and we’ll like you.

I don’t buy it. I think we need to focus myopically on that ‘small handful’ of intellectual disagreements or those grand similarities will get lost.

The term “faitheist” was “Coyned” in a contest that Jerry ran, and I thought that there was a much better term that was a runner-up: “credophile”. The root terms make more sense to me than “faitheist”, as “credophile” simply means “lover of belief”, which to me is a perfect description.

I do think there’s something suspect about the atheism of someone who lavishes love and admiration on theists while pouring scorn and anger on atheists.

Call it the S.E. Cupp Syndrome. When a fellow atheist basically blames the atheist community for the fact that we’re hated so, it’s not an altogether crazy question to ask “Are you sure you’re an atheist?”

I like the term “faitheist” and am a bit surprised that the accomodationists apparently don’t like it. They usually make such a point about respecting other people’s faith as if it was a matter of respecting the diversity of life. I’ve even known atheists who enjoy calling atheism a “faith” as well — meaning, I suppose, an “opinion.” They ought to trumpet “faitheism” around as a badge of honor, taking their cue from the atheists who are so eager to claim that they, too, are “spiritual.”

I never wished to discuss these ideas with claws. I am not here to satisfy my ego or derogate others. Your criticisms thus far have been appreciated, I understand that many of you were disappointed or frustrated with my omittance of empirical data to base my assertions on and that is a valid criticism. My response is that the article was not intended for a scientific journal but instead an ethical call for action and a general change in approach for atheist activists. Those who disagree are holding up to an evidence-based standard, which I cannot provide, and I realize how much I took for granted. It would be nice if critics of my article held themselves to the same evidence-based standard if they want to assert that the attitudes/tactics I espoused are inferior to others.

I remain unconvinced that confrontation is an effective strategy at improving the lot for atheists. SC (Salty Current) in post #70 correctly points out that I was employing an outside perspective on the atheist movement in my analysis. I do not think this is so much a problem as it is an advantage. I do understand the atheist movement from within, I have been actively involved in it for a few years. My article attempted to highlight our public-relations problem, because although I understand that many if not most atheists are great people who want to make the world a better place for all, that is not the side of atheism that is most prominent to the religious (if it’s even on the radar at all). That is why I suggested that we balance affirmation: a positive demonstration of our views, values, and actions, with an honest, social-libertarian attitude that respected people’s rights to have different beliefs so long as they don’t hurt anyone else. My main criticism with atheist activists is with those who try actively to convert others in a moral-righteousness sort of way. That is destructive to our lot in society, and disrespectful in itself. We need to be more aware of how exactly we are viewed by the religious, and adjust our public strategies in consideration of that. I think highly enough of how atheists are able to lead fulfilling and generous lives, that we have good things we can share and demonstrate to the greater society; the problem is that we deemphasize the ‘goods’ of atheism in our activism and instead emphasize the ‘bads’ of the religious.

I apologize for not being able to respond to everyone’s comments but thank you for sharing, and I promise I have read virtually all of them with genuine curiosity and aspire to have an open mind to your critiques.

My response is that the article was not intended for a scientific journal but instead an ethical call for action and a general change in approach for atheist activists

Insufficient. Empirically based or not, your criticisms and descriptions are highly questionable, and were challenged by many. You still haven’t answered them. You merely re-assert them.

That is why I suggested that we balance affirmation: a positive demonstration of our views, values, and actions, with an honest, social-libertarian attitude that respected people’s rights to have different beliefs so long as they don’t hurt anyone else.

You did much more than that. You tarred activist atheists as disrespectful, angry (as if that were a problem), and responsible themselves for the vicious caricatures the media use to portray us. That was ethically scummy. So was your refusal to acknowledge that you did it.

And just who among us do you think doesn’t “respect” people’s rights to have beliefs that don’t hurt others? Who? And why are you conflating “respect” with “therefore you shouldn’t try to argue people out of beliefs you think are wrong?”

My main criticism with atheist activists is with those who try actively to convert others in a moral-righteousness sort of way

Why are you so against argumentation and attempted persuasion? Why is it so wrong when the topic is religion – I doubt you’d say this sort of thing about people arguing for their own public policy positions who try to sway their opponents. What’s a “moral-righteous sort of way?”

You’ve given no specific examples, Andrew, but you’ve made wildly broad caricatured statements about atheists in general. Whom you won’t name. And whose behavior you won’t actually describe in detail.

Your article was bullshit, and you’re bullshitting all of us now. You’re not talking to uneducated or unsophisticated people here, and your meager efforts aren’t going to cut it. If you turned in a paper to your psych professor that was as weak, unsupported, and clearly evasive, you’d get an F. Do better

Where’s my evidence for angry and bitter atheists? You exemplify that well enough. I challenge you to read your posts and reflect on how your tone and tact appears to anyone who disagrees with you. If I bother to respond any more to your criticisms, I fear I’ll lose poise and resort to reflecting your attitude and methods, which from my experience, have done nothing to budge me from my point of view. The prospects of persuading theists from their positions cannot be much better when done in this fashion.

Oh, you’re too clever by half, Andrew. Bitter? Where do you get that (I know, I know, standard bag-o-tropes for atheists). Angry? Sometimes, yes. Other times, no. Did I excoriate your writing in harsh terms? You bet. But that doesn’t make my criticism any more or less robust. You’ve still failed to engage the substance of the critiques you’ve gotten from many people here, and now you’re playing the Tone Card.

Maybe you need to lose your poise a little. If you think I come across as bitter and angry, you should know that you look for all the world like a preening dandy all too concerned with looking proper. Your writing is bogged down with excessive verbiage and twee constructions. The fact that you refer to your friend Chris as “Mr. Stedman” throughout shows you think formality (and oddly inappropriate formality, in this context) trumps substance. Take the stick out of your ass for once.

It would be nice if critics of my article held themselves to the same evidence-based standard if they want to assert that the attitudes/tactics I espoused are inferior to others.

I think your’e confused as to who was making the positive claim:

“My main thesis […] is that the vitriol toward and gross misunderstanding of most religious people on behalf of many atheists harms our cause […]”

No one here has replied that accommodationism is definitely not one possible tactic for atheists to adopt. What folks have said is that, contrary to your explicit claim, it is not necessarily the only one that works.

Andrew – first of all – it would help a lot if you would dial way down on the pomposity quotient. This is a blog, not an academic journal, and you’re writing comments, not a scholarly monograph. Talk normal; it will help.

Now for the substance. You’re confused.

That is why I suggested that we balance affirmation: a positive demonstration of our views, values, and actions, with an honest, social-libertarian attitude that respected people’s rights to have different beliefs so long as they don’t hurt anyone else.

We already respect that right. I said that in the post, remember? Did you miss it? Of course we respect people’s rights to have different beliefs, but that doesn’t mean we have to agree with the beliefs or keep silent about them. Having a right to have a belief does not depend on everyone else’s being silent about that belief. It would be a very stultified world if it did. Think about it. No, seriously – think about it.

My main criticism with atheist activists is with those who try actively to convert others in a moral-righteousness sort of way. That is destructive to our lot in society, and disrespectful in itself.

No it isn’t. Disagreement is not disrespectful; on the contrary. Treating people like stupid spoiled children who can’t tolerate contradiction is what’s disrespectful.

But in any case we don’t “try actively to convert others” – we argue. They’re different things. Again, you can’t rule that out, and it’s absurd to try. You really don’t want to live in a world where nobody ever disagrees with anybody. You seem to think you do, but you’re wrong.

I never wished to discuss these ideas with claws. I am not here to satisfy my ego or derogate others. Your criticisms thus far have been appreciated, I understand that many of you were disappointed or frustrated with my omittance of empirical data to base my assertions on and that is a valid criticism. My response is that the article was not intended for a scientific journal but instead an ethical call for action and a general change in approach for atheist activists.

First, again, you are not an activist for the same cause(s) I am. Stop speaking as if you are. Second, you should be ashamed of issuing an “ethical call to action” based on nothing but ignorance and caricatures. As I’ve tried to explain, that is unethical.

Those who disagree are holding up to an evidence-based standard, which I cannot provide, and I realize how much I took for granted. It would be nice if critics of my article held themselves to the same evidence-based standard if they want to assert that the attitudes/tactics I espoused are inferior to others.

I actually think your tactics are appropriate to your goals, but these are not my goals. But what you continue to fail to grasp is that I’m not issuing any calls, thinly veiled by a language of “we,” for you to change your behavior. The gnu atheists have not claimed that our approach is the only worthwhile one, or that everyone should do what we’re doing. You’re projecting. What I’ve criticized you for is unsolicited criticism masquerading as self-assessment but really aimed at others, contributing to an atmosphere in which atheists are misrepresented and marginalized (a dangerous and immoral game), and arrogant pronouncements about how others should comport themselves. I don’t care how things seem to you – you have nothing to back up your contentions about the effects of our (alleged, unspecified) actions, and your behavior towards us has been obnoxious and blamable. (Nor do you have any idea what evidentiary standards, in addition to ethical standards, I hold myself to in choosing a course of action. It happens that, in addition to being involved in several movements myself, I’m a sociologist specializing in social movements. I think I have slightly more knowledge of movement dynamics than you do.)

I remain unconvinced that confrontation is an effective strategy at improving the lot for atheists.

No one cares, Andrew. We’re not demanding you be confrontational. We want you to stop arrogantly lecturing to us about how we’re doing damage when you have nothing to back it up and atheism is advancing rapidly.

SC (Salty Current) in post #70 correctly points out that I was employing an outside perspective on the atheist movement in my analysis. I do not think this is so much a problem as it is an advantage. I do understand the atheist movement from within, I have been actively involved in it for a few years.

You obviously don’t, or you wouldn’t be repeating the most ignorant canards about atheists.

My article attempted to highlight our

Grr.

public-relations problem,

By contributing to it.

because although I understand that many if not most atheists are great people who want to make the world a better place for all, that is not the side of atheism that is most prominent to the religious (if it’s even on the radar at all).

How the hell do you know? You now speak for all religious people? You don’t (and I’ll note that you failed to respond to my questions above). Are you ignorant enough to think that no one you’re dealing with here was ever religious?

That is why I suggested that we balance affirmation: a positive demonstration of our views, values, and actions,

What I’m telling you is that I consider what I do to be this. You don’t, but that’s because you assume everyone sees things as you do.

with an honest, social-libertarian attitude that respected people’s rights to have different beliefs so long as they don’t hurt anyone else.

See what I mean about the canards?

My main criticism with atheist activists is with those who try actively to convert others in a moral-righteousness sort of way.

You – Andrew – have a problem with moral righteousness? Hilarious. Again, I don’t care about your criticisms – you’re ignorant and have made no effort to understand where I’m coming from. I really think you owe us an apology.

That is destructive to our lot in society, and disrespectful in itself.

Don’t you ever tire of repeating these unsubstantiated assertions?

We need to be more aware of how exactly we are viewed by the religious,

There is no “we,” Andrew. And there is no monolithic group of “the religious” (I thought you were opposed to such simplistic generalizations).

and adjust our public strategies in consideration of that.

Of what? You have nothing but your interpretation of your limited anecdotal experience. For the hundredth time: choose whatever strategy you want with religious people. Your problem – and Stedman’s – is that you can’t simply do your thing. You have to insist that everyone do what you’re doing. Again, we don’t all have the same priorities or styles, and no one tactic is universally successful. Why do you feel the need to publicly attack gnu atheists (you’re not fooling anyone with this “we” business) and try to control our actions?

I think highly enough of how atheists are able to lead fulfilling and generous lives, that we have good things we can share and demonstrate to the greater society; the problem is that we deemphasize the ‘goods’ of atheism in our activism and instead emphasize the ‘bads’ of the religious.

Speak for yourself. If you’re speaking about others, specify whom and what you’re talking about. Anyway, this is all tangential, but has it occurred to you that 1) religion is responsible for a great deal of bad, that urgently has to be addressed, and 2) not everyone in a religion is happy in that situation or responds to criticism of religion in the way you assume? That people who don’t believe in their religions or feel “trapped” in them can be drawn to those who openly challenge them and offer the possibility of discussing and debating beliefs and ethics? That not everyone moving away from religion experiences this as loss, but may instead experience it as a heady freedom?

I apologize for not being able to respond to everyone’s comments but thank you for sharing, and I promise I have read virtually all of them with genuine curiosity and aspire to have an open mind to your critiques.

You’re not a politician and we’re not your constituents. This is cheap salesman talk.

Andrew – first of all – it would help a lot if you would dial way down on the pomposity quotient. This is a blog, not an academic journal, and you’re writing comments, not a scholarly monograph. Talk normal; it will help.

Yes, it’s crossing the line to word salad.

Angry and bitter atheists challenging Andrew to come up with a shred of evidence for a series of unfounded generalizations. How shrill. How strident.

You sound sincere in your aim and goals, but here I think are your fundamental problems:

1. You seem to want to declaw atheists with your claws. Yes, that’s right, your posts and articles are full of malicious claws, attacking atheists because of their tone, or because you call them angry or aggressive, not on the substance of any particular set of ideas or arguments. You are effectively smearing a group of people using the same language as our enemies. It is in fact your language that is the problem, not ours.

2. You are under the illusion that we’re not ethical, that we’re somehow filled with prejudice and hate, from which springs forth our aggressive angry language toward believers. This is a fiction and myth, a strawman misrepresentation of who we are. You are not communicating from an ethical position yourself, by smearing and misrepresenting fellow atheists. You are not setting an example of the aims and goals you claim to uphold and cherish.

3. As for our image and our presentation, there is no PR problem. The problem falls on the side of believers who are intolerant not us. Believers who don’t accept the equal status of other people’s right to believe or not believe, or their right to free speech. As Ophelia tried to point out to you, we’re the ones who are secularists, who are fighting for the equal rights of all, and the injustices against both believers and disbelievers. This is something we are proud of, not ashamed of.

4. Our principle aims are not to evangelise to believers with missionary zeal to convert them to non-belief. Our principle aims are to expose injustices and falsehoods, to fight against religious privilege or special status whether in politics or society, to activitely encourage and promote science and reason. We do this using rational argument and when necessary, moral outrage. All these things are, things to be proud of, not ashamed of.

I hope that you consider each of the points I have made, and the criticisms (yes harsh with claws) made against you. We all feel that accommodationists are undermining our efforts, not the other way around. That your smear campaigns need to stop, because you’re doing the damage, not us. If you want to try a different approach, go ahead. No one is telling you how to communicate with believers, you are the one lecturing the rest of us in conforming to your style of communication (which is strikingly absent when dealing with your fellow atheists.) If you’re going to persist with the smearing, then you must realise that you’re creating enemies and not friends, and fostering the divisiveness and alienation that you seem to want to preach against.

Stallings-ist, in honor of The Rev. Earl Stallings, one of the recipients of King’s letter from Birmingham jail.

What’s that? Nobody ever heard of him? You mean that in a social movement, the people calling for moderation are forgotten? And the loud, angry ones who stood up and made a difference get all the credit? But, but… catch more flies with honey… Angry people turn others off… just shuts down dialog, in stead of building bridges…

Yep Stallings-ists, we’ve heard the platitudes. And we’ve seen the parallels in the history of every other social movement. Loud and angry, coupled with reason and eloquence, is a necessary component for creating change.

MosesZD, as another gay atheist I find your comment in #21 in extremely poor taste. I don’t always agree with Chris, and I wouldn’t expect you to, but I would expect some base level of respect for another person such as would rule out this sort of shoddy comment.

I think the ensuing discussion regarding the similarities and differences between the gay rights movement and the current atheist movement is very interesting, though.

I think the difference between accomodationists and gnus is not one of civility.

I suspect an apt analogy would be that of a group of friends who take different approach towards a mutual acquaintance with a marital problem.

Both gnus and accomodationists suspect that the partner of our mutual friend is having an affair. The wife has a weekly tennis lesson with a handsome instructor but for some reason it takes place in the couples bedroom. Whenever we are around for tea on the day of the tennis lesson the wife and her instructor always disappear into the room for an hour during which we can hear bumping and ecstatic moaning until they finally emerge looking hot and sweaty. Sometimes the bedroom door is left a little open and we can catch a glimpse of a pile of clothes on the floor and the duvet moving up and down.

Our mutual friend tells us that he is so happy that his wife is so dedicated to tennis these days. It is a wonderful exercise and she seems much more relaxed after every lesson.

Both the gnu and the accomodationist are pretty much agreed upon what our friend’s wife is really doing but we both see that our friend keeps insisting that it’s just tennis.

The difference in approach to these facts is what distinguishes the gnus from the accomodationists. The gnus approach is to say straight-out what we think is going on. We point out the plain facts that to learn tennis you actually need things like a tennis court, a tennis racket and tennis balls. We remark that in every other instance of someones partner going into a bedroom with someone else, taking off their clothes and jumping under the duvet with that person for an hour of moaning, the obvious conclusion would be that something distinctly non-tennis was occurring! We ask our mutual friend to think about the facts of the matter and try to come to a conclusion that better fits these facts.

The accomodationist, on the other hand, thinks it a bad idea to bring the matter into the open like this. They will say that, although they personally don’t think having their own partner take tennis lessons in this particular way would be best for them, if our mutual friend finds it beneficial to their relationship then such ‘tennis’ is a good thing with many clear advantages. Not only that but they will loudly disapprove of the gnu upsetting our mutual friend by suggesting something untoward is going on, or that our friend is gullible or indeed stupid for not realizing what is actually happening. The accomodationists worry that the very fact that the gnus are around pointing out the cognitive dissonance in the situation creates a scenario where our mutual friend is distressed and links the gnus and the accomodationists together. Indeed there is the danger that the accomodationists might get asked the question, “My wife just couldn’t be having an affair! You don’t agree with those nasty gnus, do you?” If forced to answer that question then the accomodationists are no better in the eyes of our mutual friend than the gnus. And that will not do.

An entertaining analogy. A further refinement that strikes me is that when they get together, the gnu might say to the mutual friend “You know she’s having an affair, don’t you? Why don’t you just face facts? It’s making it uncomfortable for all of us.” To which the accomodationist could snarl “Why must you keep shrieking those four-letter words!?” The gnu takes umbrage and raises his voice in protest, giving the accomodationist the opportunity to counter with “Just look how angry you are!”

A great and amusing analogy Sigmund. It is comments like the following on Professor Dawkins website that encourages me to continue with the confrontationist approach:

This will hopefully be the start, but all of us in the Arabic/Islamic countries still need your help and support, what people like Richard Dawkins and others do in Europe and the US really does make a difference in places like Jordan and even Saudi Arabia where people secretly smuggle documentaries like “The Root of all Evil?” and “Religulous” so please dnt stop doing what you do :)

Our Four Horsemen, by no means singlehandedly, have begun to achieve a revolution, which will always breed reactionaries. Our reactionaries try to claim our mantle and point the way in the right direction, while trying as cleverly as they can to conceal the fact that that direction leads straight back to the status quo against which we wished to rebel in the first place.

I suspect an apt analogy would be that of a group of friends who take different approach towards a mutual acquaintance with a marital problem.

Both gnus and accomodationists suspect that the partner of our mutual friend is having an affair. The wife has a weekly tennis lesson with a handsome instructor but for some reason it takes place in the couples bedroom.

A great and amusing analogy Sigmund. It is comments like the following on Professor Dawkins website that encourages me to continue with the confrontationist approach:

An amusing analogy, but I don’t think its a good one. It probably promotes the wrong approach (confronting someone in a vulnerable situation by hitting him in the face) in that your person identified ‘accommodationist’ is in this case behaving much more sensitively to the situation. Letting someone find out for themselves (perhaps with a little guidance) is much better than throwing it in their face. And there are circumstances where it is best not to bring it up at all.

The religious situation is a bit different. You don’t insert yourself into a deeply private matter. Even the most outspoken atheists work by putting the information out that people can draw their own conclusion (the ONLY way people are weaned off of religion. The accomodationists want to hide even that information.

Jay, you make a good point that also occurred to me after I had written the post. The analogy is incomplete as written because there isnt really a good reason for either the gnu or the accomodationist to intervene in this personal relationship. In real life gnus tend to intervene only when religious reasoning is being forced onto the rest of us (I suppose the analogous scenario would be the husband – or wife – arranging “tennis” lessons for the rest of us, without our agreement.)

I have lost any interest in arguing with people who cannot put forth critique without it being full of condescension or judging my character. I would be surprised if anyone who disagrees with you on anything would care to be in your presence very long. Perhaps that is why many of you spend so much time patting each other on the back while you each take turns spewing invectives at anyone foolish enough to visit this blog and voice a dissenting opinion. It does not matter if the points you make are valid or not, in the game of persuasion the way you present them can either buttress or nullify it all. I know there are people who found my article agreeable, so it is an interesting observation that at this blog I did not get a single voice of support out of over a 100 comments. Not only that, but a few of you made it explicit that intellectual disagreements preclude civility. How can someone be nice to someone they disagree with so strongly? I do not think that is a difficult question to answer, but many of you treat it like it is a silly impossibility. This place is a hive, with highly vigilant mind-police eager to bully and enforce a single way of thinking. That may sound ironic given that I wrote an entire article trying to persuade fellow atheists to adopt a certain perspective, but it was an argument presented with respect, self-criticism, and without insult. The discussions on this blog would be far more fruitful if ideas were presented in a similar fashion.

Oh, nonsense, Andrew. Never mind the comments; you could just address what I said in the post, instead. What about all the middle ground you neglected? What about the false and impoverished choice you offer between “making society less religious by actively trying to persuade people away from religion” or “work[ing] toward toleration and coexistence with our religious neighbors”? Do you see what’s wrong with that simplistic polarity? Do you get that that really doesn’t describe contemporary atheism?

As for the hive mind – look, we’ve seen a huge amount of this “oh won’t you rude new atheists please please please stop torturing babies?” advice over the past couple of years, so yes, we get irritated by fresh installments. Relax; loosen your tie; talk to us like a real person. Maybe we can get somewhere.

Sheesh. And I thought Andrew’s misdirection at Josh was bad. My opinion of Andrew is very near 0 at this time.

It does not matter if the points you make are valid or not, in the game of persuasion the way you present them can either buttress or nullify it all.

Errr, yes it does matter. Embellishing a bit may be OK, but intentionally lying to people to persuade them to your cause is wholly unethical. Case in point:

I know there are people who found my article agreeable

And you got their agreement using unethical tactics of persuasion, didn’t you? Well, bully for you. I’m happy for any small part I had in playing your little confirmation game in this thread. You really know the gnus and other atheists too well, and now your comment will live on as evidence of your integrity on that matter.

Okay, I have stepped back in to clarify that statement about whether arguments must be valid or not. The message I meant to get across is that your critiques may or may not have been entirely valid, but even if they were, the meaning is lost when they are presented with such maliciousness. I did not mean that it’s okay to lie to people. Please do not accuse me of bullying people into supporting my article, you can read everything I have said and not find an ounce of bullying. Thank you for pointing out that dubious sentence – it did not mean what you understandably read it to mean.

Andrew – Try reading your post again, but changing all of the “we”s to “you”s, which is what they are. Focus on the implication that our behavior is not just ineffective but unethical. Then remember the context, and the fact that you’re one in a long line of people making these unsubstantiated assertions (are you familiar with the Tom Johnson affair?).

This place is a hive, with highly vigilant mind-police eager to bully and enforce a single way of thinking.

Hee.

I wrote an entire article trying to persuade fellow atheists to adopt a certain perspective, but it was an argument presented with respect, self-criticism, and without insult.

We’re a hive mind, even though both Sigmund and I disagreed with Ophelia about making claims people are not atheists, and posted them, and then Ophelia admitted this and conceded the point. All of which are in plain sight in the comments here.

Is that how a hive mind works? Clearly Andrew, the irony in your posts and articles is more than red-faced. You are sadly lacking in emotional maturity, and hence why you were unable to take the criticism that you must have expected when you began smearing fellow atheists. Expect to make enemies when you do.

Most of the regulars here are – roughly – likeminded. That may (gasp) even be why they come here. And if Ophelia does most of the tone-setting, well it’s her internet presence, which is not the same as an intellectual dictatorship. All are free to come and go and Ophelia does permit extreme disagreement with her views to be expressed. I am aware of very few cases of banning/deletion and of none that did not have a real justification. No one has ever been censored here because they didn’t follow a party line or asked an awkward question, which makes places like The Intersection (where the main hobby horse being ridden is nothing less than the skills of “correct” communication) look like North Korea by contrast. I would venture that about 100% of regular commenters here would be in favour of accomodationists’ right to adopt any tone they choose in their communications with believers, even in those cases where we consider it utterly counter-productive (and say so, as we ought, if that’s our opinion). Now, I’m not saying anyone on the other side is explicitly trying to deny us the same right, but when we are incessantly lectured about the limitations we should observe in exercising that right, then taking such advice, whether sweetly or obnoxiously put, does amount to accepting a curtailing of said right.

I firmly believe that our more pluralistic attitude is a better one than that which opposes it. My main reason for this is because it is more respectful of individual rights, the sacrifice of which cannot be justified by the aims of any movement. Even if there were such a single atheistic movement with clearly and widely agreed goals and methods, this would still be my opinion. Given the fact that this is anything but the case, that opinion is anything but weakened.

Pithier version of above: when accomodationists say something with which gnus disagree, the gnus say “You’re wrong.” When gnus say something with which accomodationists disagree, the accomodationists say “You shouldn’t say that.” As a gnu, I therefore say to the accomodationists, “You’re wrong.”

OK which of you bastards have been vindictively disagreeing with Andrew, maliciously asking him to back up his points with evidence, cruelly pointing out the fallacy of his argument and and mockingly arguing amongst each other as he proudly accuses us of all being a hive mind?

Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!

I actually went back and read his god-awful screed again to make sure I hadn’t been mistaken. The title, “The Newer Atheism: The case for Affirmation and Accomodation” actually sounds like what most gnus have been arguing – that there is a genuine reason why a two pronged approach of confrontation and accomodationism is the best approach, the gnus doing the confrontation and the accomodationists doing their own thing. The trouble with the piece is that is seems to be mistitled. It would be much more accurate to read it as “The case for Affirmation OR Accomodation”- with Andrew firmly coming down on the Accomodationist side of the fence and disparaging the gnus at every opportunity. Then again I can only presume he was criticising the gnus; as usual specifics were not provided.

A big part of the gist of Andrew’s piece is to say that we (gnus) are doing things wrong. Does he really expect us just to say thank you for having pointed it out? If one is finding a position very difficult to defend, maybe it needs rethinking, which is what we do say to both theists and accomodationists.

A declared non-believer should not expect believers to want to cuddle up with him, just because that’s what he wants. So it seems the preferred tactic is to become the “good” atheist, which, in order to have much meaning, requires the existence of “bad” atheists. That’s our cue. I’ve already said something like this before, but the accomodationists need us, to the degree that if we didn’t exist, they’d literally have to invent us, which, as we know, has actually happened in the case of the worst behaviours attributed to us.

It is hard to understand why some of those who reject certain beliefs seem so much to want to side with those who hold them and direct all their criticism at those other rejectors honest enough to say that, on the whole, holding beliefs that seem to be false ought not to be considered a good thing, especially when the minority that doesn’t hold them is so widely reviled. If the main reason is because believers are in the majority, that makes it worse, not better, in my eyes.

Stewart said: “It is hard to understand why some of those who reject certain beliefs seem so much to want to side with those who hold them and direct all their criticism at those other rejectors honest enough to say that, on the whole, holding beliefs that seem to be false ought not to be considered a good thing”

I think that particular question is answered by Winston Churchill’s quote:

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last”

In the current case it is the gnu’s who are being pushed towards the jaws.

The accomodationists should be thanking us that we are here playing the bad cop role. If it weren’t for a mutual love of complaining about outspoken atheists the accomodationists and believers would have nothing in common.

Agreed. Again I have to paraphrase something I’ve said before, which is that all the explanations about why we should be communicating this way or that way have never rung true to me, mainly because they were being drowned out by a deafening subtext that may be summed up as “we’re too frightened to rock the boat, so don’t you dare do it either.”

Hammill the ‘ashamed non-believer’ is causing trouble again, this time by reinforcing Lovley’s misguidedness on the comments section by doing a bit of cheerleading and further mispresenting any legitimate response to Lovley’s smearing as bullying.

Yes, I noticed that comment of “Hammill”‘s yesterday, and its intervention on Rosenau’s post on me last week. I’m beginning to think “Hammill” is monitoring me. I wonder who “Hammill” is and why it’s so interested all of a sudden.

I actually think many of us probably reject the term ‘new atheist’ in many ways, and even the term ‘atheist’. It is convenient to use the labels sometimes, but there is no coherent ideology or manifesto or goals that any of us actually subscribe to.

And so we’re a loosely assorted group of various intellectuals from various backgrounds that have come together into a cultural movement, where the enemies appear to be irrationality and its sibling: religion. Our friends appear to be reason, science and liberty.

[…] book about atheism he’s hardly a should not be said kind of a guy. There was also upsetness about Andrew Lovley (Jan. 6), who wrote a post encouraging atheists to be conciliatory instead of antagonistic. […]

[…] It may be tempting to misunderstand the motives of this blog; I have no interest in providing fodder to any apologists who hope to find talking points or new arguments, and I’m certainly not an undercover theist (I hear some folks are fond of slinging those kinds of allegations around). […]